Presumption of life

Sun Feb 3, 2002 10:42 pm

 

I have been thinking long and hard about the issues we discussed recently. An unnatural thing to do that it is, one nevertheless can only arrive at strong and robust rationale for holding certain positions on important life issues by being open to critiques and a willilngness to amend in light of convincing argument. And it is so right that sometimes the best solution for a society is garnered through intelligent compromise -- especially so for a secular one where rights and wrongs are determined through a democratic process. One needs not avoid controversial and emotionally charged issues such as abortion as long as the focus is on consesnsus and common values instead of reactionary and --yes-- judgmental (in a pejorative sense).

 

So much of man's action is based on what is permitted. In WWII Poland, peaceful neighbors for decades turned on each other, killing, raping and parading through the streets with babies pierced on pitchforks. George Will told the story and offered the following answer to horrors such as this reenacted countless times: "because they could, because it was permitted." Man, when stripped of his moral shackles, will do dastardly deeds. This phenomenon is not always so clear-cut; lesser evil may be found in people of basically decent nature but tolerated to act indecently. The extent of man's good will is determined by the boundary he places on the sanctity of life. Starting with the self, it may expand to include family, friends, community and so on. Man's ability to love and cherish were no less when slave trading was accepted. What allowed them to do what we now consider to be obvious evil was a view that certain people were not equal, or are of lesser life forms.

 

With all that said, what had always puzzled me about the view on abortion as something to be advocated (mostly by the population-control crowd), protected or as an individual choice by otherwise loving and decent people may find the answer in how they view the sanctity of a human fetus. This is not an indictment on anyone who holds this point of view for it is true that none of us can truly determine when the right to life begins. However, the lack of a credible moral authority does not mean that we can stand neutral on something so imaginably important and with so much at stake -- the extinguishing of a human life -- if our action or non-action turns out to be wrong. The foundation of our justice system is based on the "presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of doubt." The tenet is born out of a fear for wrongful prosecution that may lead to irreversible damage on the innocent -- an argument often cited by opponents of capital punishment (supported by many Christians btw, Jon). If the decision to abort a baby/fetus turns out to be wrong, Joanie, the consequence is not only the mother's burden to bear, it is a sin of cosmic scope. Where we draw the line, Joe, is not only an emotional one for then one is just as valid as another up to a fully formed baby close to birth. No, it must be a morally determined guideline based on a presumption of life first and foremost, and intelligently supported by the best current scientific research to determine the point when a fetus most likely becomes a viable human entity. Anyone who can bear the thought of a baby/fetus being killed without feeling pain in his heart better be damn sure that what is being terminated is not even close to a human life -- and who among us can boldly claim that knowledge with absolute certainty? If we are to err, the only acceptable side is life. To fear being stigmatized as "intolerant" and permit irresponsible, un-tempered freedom may inadvertently allow misguided evil to foment.

 

Accordingly, the best approach to the problem that also takes into consideration the welfare of a mother-to-be is to resort to abortion as a last alternative in quantifiable circumstances of critical and special nature such as rape, incest and endangerment of mother's life, and limit the operation to as early a term as can reasonably be accepted by purposeful consensus.

 

Same conclusion, but hopefully not due to stubbornness but careful consideration of available reasoning. I try my best to avoid claiming a position first superficially, and then find reasons to defend it instead of additional support; at least in this issue, it is not a debating exercise. If I have been remiss or presented incorrect thesis, please be gentle with your enlightenment. ;-)